
,C5-7/ 



/?'6? 



012 028 976 7 



pH8J 



r^i W- 




S P E K C H 



CASSIUS M. CLAY, 



BEFORE THE 



LAW DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY 



OF ALBANY, N. Y. 



FEBRUARY 3, 1863. 



SECOND EDITION. 



NEW YORK: 

PRESS OF WYNKOOP, HALLENBECK & THOMAl 

\o. 113 KULTO.V Strkkt 

1863. 






^/^ 









SPEECH OE C. M. CJ.-VY. 



Introduction. 

Gentlemen of the Law Depautment, Ladies, and 
Fellow-Citizexs : 

All history unites in one conclusion ; tliar kiiowlfdirc 
and virtue constitute the basis of the permanent grandeur 
and safety of nations. Human hiip]>iness is not the result 
of chance; this aspiration of all Iiumaiiiry, Deity yields us 
but on conditions ; we must know and do. jMontesipiieu 
tells us tliat honor is the principle of Monarchies; and 
virtue of Republics. I am of the opinion tiiat honor, in 
the sense of a haughty, self-seeking elevation, never was 
the basis of any permanent greatness : and that virtue is 
the only safe foundation of all Governments. The Em- 
pires of Alexander and Napoleon passed away ; the one 
with, and the other before, its creative intelligence ! On 
the true and the right only have been built the lasting 
nationalities. 

The founders of our llepublic were not ignnraiit of this 
fact : and, in the enacting clause of the Constituti(»ii, they 
declared one of its great objects to be, to ^^ cstuhlish jnsticr.'''' 
Tautological was it then in them to include " liberty," 
among their purposes. For, without justice, there is no 
liberty; and what is liberty but justice — which, perceiv- 
ino- the true relation of all thinus, ob»'vs (hem '. Tlii'se 



eternal relations of things are " laws." Well may it then 
be said, that " without law, there is no liberty." I stand 
before you the defender of " law." A citizen of the United 
States, and a " Republican," I would vindicate my party, 
and my country ; for I believe they are one. I stand by 
" tlie Union, the Constitution, and the laws." The Consti- 
fvttoi/ as it is. The Union as our fathers desi<j^ncd it : as it 
ought to be : based not upon injustice, usurping the name 
of law ; but truly upon the law of nature, and of nature's 
God. 

First, then, we claim the name of " iZq»/6//a/;i," because 
it best represents what we are ; it is a good name : let 
us never abandon it ! It is not our fault, in this crisis of 
life and death to the nation, that party names and part}' 
organizations are revived. I ardently hoped that, in 
this struggle for our national being, all citizens of " the 
United States of America" would have stood for them, 
in sup[)ort of their chosen " powers that be." But the 
" Democratic" party has decreed otherwise : and we have 
nothing left but to accept the issue. I accept it with 
reluctance, but not with fear. I have no personal enmi- 
ties to avenge : the friends of my country ai"e m}^ friends : 
the enemies of my country are my enemies. If we are 
right, we will stand : if we are wrong, we will fall. It is 
a signilicant lact, tliat, the foes of our Republic abroad, in 
the rebel States, and in our Northern homes, all take com- 
mon ground against us. 

Who is Responsible for the War ? 

It is said that iIh; Kt'piil)lican party is responsible ibr 

thr war. That (un- violation of the Constitutional rights of 

the Sla\(' Slates gave tiii'm cause for "secession" — that 

the refusal of the Reptiblicans to return fiigiti\(» slaves, 



through mobs and "porsoiiul liberty bills," cniichMl into 
law in some Repnblican States, was in violalion of the 
Constitution, and just cause of a dissolution of tlic rnioii. 
Grant its truth, for ariiunuuit's sake ; beciusr ;i man is 
injured in violation of the civil law, must he rebel against 
the Cxovernment? ( 'ertaiidy not : els<^ all law must per- 
ish, and universal anarchy desolate mankind. The true 
remedy under our form of government is reform, not revo- 
lution : the ballot of the majority, not the bayonet of the 
minority, liut all jurists agree that those who <lemand, 
shall do justice. The llepublican party did, following the 
irrepressible instincts of nature, sometimes forget the law. 
But what the Free States did exceptionally, the Slave 
States did systematically. They never held the Constitu- 
tion higher than slavery; they made mob-violence the 
rule; regard to the Constitution, the exception. From the 
foundation of the Government in 1789, to the year ISGl, 
in which that tyranny broke out into armed rebellion, tliere 
never was a day in which the Constitution of the United 
States M^as enforced ; or could without war have been 
enforced in the Slave States. Article 3, section 2, of the 
Constitution of the United States, declares, that : " The 
judicial power shall extend to controversies between two 
or more States — between a State and citizens of another 
gtate — and between citizens of different States ;" yet 
South Carolina, the chief mover in this rebellion, in the 
most formal, insulting, and violent manner, in violation of 
the above clause in the Constitution, expelled :\Iassachu- 
setts from her borders, seeking, by an appeal to the courts, 
redress for repeated injuries ; and then by State authority 
made this violence into law. ( )f course, all redress for simi- 
lar denials of justice to private citizens of the United States 
has been systematically denied, in all the Slave States. 



6 

Again : article 4, section 2, United States Constitution, 
declares that, " The citizens of each State shall be entitled 
to all tlie })rivileges and innnunities of citizens in the 
si'veral States." The Constitution of the United States 
and the Constitutions of all the States have declared in 
favor of freedom of assemblage of the people — freedom of 
ntterance by sj)eech and writing — and freedom of religion ; 
and vet in no Slave State have these rights of American 
citizenship been allowed. They have been in some Slave 
States forbidden by law, and in all suppressed by sys- 
tematic mob-violence, which, in the most liberal of them, 
was declared, by the most " respectable" Slave-holding 
citizens, to be " the common law" of the South. I stop, 
not to give isolated cases, as the annexation of Texas, and 
the armed violence in Kansas, but confine myself to these 
systematic violations of the Constitution. How dare, 
then, the enemies of the Republican party to plead onr 
disregard of the Constitution in vindication of the Southern 
Rebellion ? The world knows that this charge of the 
slave-holders and their allies is not only a calunmy 
against us, but not at all the cause of the rebellion. 
For the lact is notorious, that the slave interest held 
power over us, not only in the veto of a Democratic 
President, but in a jtro-slavery court of the United States, 
and a senat(jrial and legislative majority in the (Jongress, 
at the day and hour when they entered into this crinu; 
against huiuaii nature. 

Is there Legal Right in the Slave-Holders' Rebellion ? 
Thes«,' alh'gations of otlense falling to the ground, have 
the States in rebellion any power under the Constitution 
to " wcaA ?'" If this Union is a "confederation," the vio- 
lation of its terms miiriit be a cause of disunion. IJut 



certaiiily it is not. We had a " coiiAidrration ;" it wmk 
full of will, bat had no power to enforce it. History is 
before us. We overthrew the old confederation ol tlitsc 
States, simply because it was a " confederation," and n«»t 
a Government. Ignoring the States, w«' met as a great 
nation of a continent, to form, according to tlu; enacting 
clause of the Constitution of 178!), "a more perfect 
Union." It declares itself what it is — it sjx-aks not of 
States, but men. "We, the itcoplc of the United States, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
States of America." The States arc not " sovereign." 
There cannot be two sovereigns in one; territory. The 
Constitution declares that the National Constitution is the 
sovereign. The regulation of commerce " with foreign 
nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian 
tribes" (art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3), is a " sovereign" power ; 
it is given only to the National Legislature. " To establish 
a uniform rule of naturalization" — " to levy and collect 
taxes, duties, and imports, and excises" — to make " uniform 
aws on the subject of bankf u])tcies" — " to coin money, 
regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the 
standard of weights and measures" — " to establish post-offi- 
ces and post-roads" — " to promote the progress of science 
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors 
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writ- 
ings and discoveries." " To define and punish piracies and 
felonies committed on the high seas, and otfenscs against 
the laws of nations." "To declare war, grant letters of 
marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures 
on land and water." " To raise and support armies — to 
provide and support a navy." " To provide for the 
organizing armies and disciplining the militia." These are 



Jill sovorciirn powers claimed for the XatioiuiHiloveriiment. 
lint this is not all. The States VlYQ forbiddoi after 1808 to 
import shivcs without the consent of Congress. " No State 
shall enter into an}^ treaty, alliance, or confederation — 
ijjrant letters of marque or reprisal ; coin money ; emit 
bills of credit ; make anything but gold and silver coin a 
tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, 
ex iKJst facto law, or law impairing the obligation of 
contracts, or grant any title of nobility" — " no State shall, 
without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or 
duties on imports or exports, except what may be abso- 
lutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, &c. — 
and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and con- 
trol of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent 
of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or 
ships of war, in time of peace, enter into any agreement 
or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, 
or engage in war, unless actually iuvaded, or in sucii im- 
minent danger as will not admit of delay." But to crov^^n 
all and forever to silence all* dispute, article G, section 2, 
United States Constitution, declares : " This Constitution 
and tlie laws of tlu^ United States, which shall be made, in 
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be 
made, under theauthority of the United States, shall be the 
supreme law of the land, anything in the laws or Constitu- 
tion of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Here, 
then, is an end of all argument. So thought Judge Story 
(Martin v. Hunter: Wheaton, '324-27). " The Constitution 
of the Unitecl States was established, not by the States in 
their sovereign capacity, but emphatically, as the preamble 
of the Constitution declares, by " the jieople of the United 
States." So thought John ^[arshall (Cohens /-. Virginia : 
(J Wheaton, 113-14). " The Constitution and the laws of 



a State, so far as they are repugnant to the ('(disiitiition 
and hiws of the United States, are ahsohitely voifl. 'J'hey 
are members of the one (j real Empire,'" So (h«tii<rht Daniel 
Webster, in his immortal reply to llayne, in the Sriuite, 
Jannar}^ 1830 : "It is, sir, the people's Constinitioii ^ the 
people's Grovernment : made for The people — made by tlu! 
people — and answerable to the people. Tin; people of the 
United States have declared that this Constitution shall be 
the supreme law." Such is history, the Constitution, 
judicial decisions ; and the authority of our most illustrious 
men. " Secession" has no warrant in the Constitution, 
but is in violation of its spirit and its kinguage ; is treason ; 
and its authors, aiders, and abettors, deserve death. 

The Right of Revolution: and of Unity. 

But we are told that the Slave States have the right of 
revolution — and they are the judges of tiie necessity. 1 
grant that there is, according to our declaration of inde- 
pendence, an inherent right of revolution among all 
peoples. But this is the right of the oppressed majority 
against an oppressive minority. What is the absurdity, 
then, of this slave-power, at the time itself a controlling 
majority, revolting against an impotent minority ? Besides, 
if there is a right of revolution, there is a right of self- 
preservation. 

Locke (Work upon Government : B : i) declares that 
government is founded npou the " consent" of the people, 
"wherein a majority have a right to act." 

Vattel (Laws of Nations : B : 1 : ch. 2) says : " Every 
nation is obliged to perform the duty of self-preservation." 
— " The body of a nation cannot then abandon a })rovin('e, 
a town, or even a particular person, who has done his 



10 

[>;irt, unless obliged to \t from nccessiti/.'^ " Since, tlien, a 
nation is obliged to preserve itself, it lias a right to every 
thing necessary to its preservation, provided these means- 
are not unjust in themselves, or absolutely forbidden by 
the laws of nations." 

Edmund Burke (Ketiections on the Kevohition in 
France) eloquently pleads for the unity of nations: 
" Society is indeed a contract : * * * but the State ought 
not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership 
in trade, of pepper and coffee, calico and tobacco, to be 
broken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dis- 
solved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on 
with other reference — ^because it is not a partnership in 
tilings subservient only to the gross animal existence, of a 
temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in 
science — a partnei-ship in all art — a partnership in every 
virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of the partner- 
ship cannot be obtained in one, in many generations, it 
becomes a partnership not only between those who are 
living, but between those who are living, those who are 
dead, and those who are to be born." We accept the 
blood-bought compact of the Constitution, which is o)ir 
inheritance, its enjoyment, and its defense. 

The world knows who struck the first parricidal blow 
at its life; and, as we did not first draw the sword, so we 
will be the last to sheathe it, till the Union be restored, and 
the Constitution be vindicated, we " never will lay down 
our arms — never !" 

" Habeas Corpus. " 

Those who find fault with our cause, of course find fault 
with our method of defense. It is urged that President 
Lincoln has violated the Constitution, in the suspension ot 



11 . 

the privilege oi habeas corpus ; in that clause (art. 1, sec. 0, 
cl. 2. C. U.S.) which dechires that " The writ oi' /uihcas cor- 
ims shall not be suspended, uiik'ss wlicn, in cases of rebel- 
lion or invasion, the public safety may require it." I too 
complain of President Lincoln in the exercise of this 
power; not because he has exercised it ;il all ; but because 
he has not done it efficiently. I would have spared the 
insignificant traitors ; but I would have brought those emi- 
nent in evil to summary military execution ! But how is 
it attempted to be proved that the President has acted in 
violation of law ? I find that the "Federalist" only 
alludes to this clanse, as one of those which stand in place 
of a bill of rights. Judge Story, in his " Commentaries on 
the Constitution of the United States," avoids the question 
by simply saying, " it would seem, as power is given to Con- 
gress to suspend the writ in cases of invasion and rebellion, 
that the right to judge whether exigency had arisen must 
exclusively belong to that body." Judge Kent says noth- 
ing in his Conmientaries upon it. So, having no authority 
upon the subject, we are left to precedent and to our own 
reasoning. In the Burr conspiracy. Congress having refused 
to give him the power, Thomas Jefterson arrested Burr on 
his own authority. So Gen. Jackson's suspension of the 
writ of habeas corjms at New Orleans was sustained by the 
American People, by a restoration of the fine imposed 
by the civil authorities. It is contended, because the 
clause is found in the group of powers belonging to Con- 
gress, that, therefore, it is forbidden to the President. It 
is the 2d clause of article 1, section 9. But clause 7 of the 
same section is, that : "No money shall be drawn from the 
treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made bv 
law." Will any man dare say that this clause applies to 
Congress, and not to the President "? On the contrary, does 



12 

nor t'vt'ry one see that it applies more espocially to the 
President, who, from his power of appoiutmciit, is just the 
person most dangerous in this respect ? The argument, 
then, proves too much, or nothing. If, because! this second 
chiuse is found in section 9, the President is forbidden its 
use; then, by the same reasoning, the prohibition of section 
7 ap])lies also to Congress, and not to the President. But, 
as no one will venture to contend for the last, they must 
abandon the first also. 

The Congress makes the laws, but does not execute 
them. Reason would say that he who executes is the one, 
if the emergency should arise, to suspend tlicm. The 
Congress is only bound by oath to "5?/^?por^" the Consti- 
tution ; but the President is specially bound to " solemnly 
swear to preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of 
the United States." If there is a fitness in any oue sus- 
pending that writ, it belongs most certainly to him. He 
is commander of the army and navy : he is bound to " take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed." These are 
duties that are imposed, not upon Congress, but upon him 
only. All fair reasoning, then, gives him the right to say 
when the public safety, in rebellion or invasion, may 
require its suspension. " The Madison Papers " would 
se«Mn to justify this conclusion (vol. 2, p. 741). " The 
Legislature of the United States shall pass no law upon 
the subject of religion — nor touching the liberty of the 
press" — but the phraseology is at once changed, and it 
irocs on to say — " nor shall the privilege of the writ of 
hahdis rorpu.s i'ver be suspended," &c. The next time tlie 
clause is again named, in Pinckuey's report, the Congress 
(»r Liirisjaiiire is again numtioned ; aud on the final pas- 
sage, it is (Jioiqx'd. In most cases, where the phraseology 
wuH changed, it was done w^ith a purpose. No doubt, on 



a subject of so iiiucli iiii[)ortancc, this was not licic doiio 
without design. It was matured in couniiittcc : and the 
inference is, that this power was desiujned to W h-ft, wiih 
the President, or wherever (;x[)t!rienc(! shouhl best fix it. 

lam of the opinion, therefore, tliat its exercise lias faHen 
into tlie right hands; and it has been constitutionally ex- 
ercised. This writ we inherit with the connnon law from 
our British ancestry. But there is nothing dangcnms in 
its exercise. It was wrested from Charles II., by the jx'ople, 
against kings, who, like Louis XIV., claimed to be the 
State. It was taken from a tyrant to protect the people. 
But here it is given by the people to their own Executive 
servant, for their own safety. 

The history of this country proves that all tin; fears 
affected by the Democratic party, in this regard, are imag- 
inar}', or traitorous. The whole force of the Government 
is centrifugal, not central. The most popular Presidents, 
with all their patronage, have rarely been able to keep 
the Congress permanently on the side of the administra- 
tion. The Government has never been strong enough to 
vindicate the Constitution in the Slave States. Its ruin is 
now threatened, not by the Federal despotism, but by the 
false doctrine of State rights ; and, if the Union fails, it 
fails by its too great weakness, and not by its too great 
strength ; and upon this issue we go before the. people and 
the world. 

The Proclamation of the 22cl September, 1862. 
The immortal prochunation of the L^-Jd of Scptrndjer is 
equally unpalatable to the Democracy. They know very 
well that to destroy the pro-slaver}^ power of the South is 
to destroy the right wing of their political army, and to 
overthrow forever the foundation of their power in this 



14 

lu'lHihlic-. Ilriict' this clamor of "great is Diana of the 
Ki)liesiaiis," and "of the overthrow of tiie Constitution !" 

Tliese traitors to the Constitution, who habitually, in 
the name of slaver}'', overrode all its guarantees of citizen- 
ship and liberty — who used the army of the United States 
in Kansas in unison with mob violence to the overthrow 
of ihe elective franchise — who, for the first time in history, 
conspired the destruction of the Government which a de- 
luded jjeople had confided to their sworn protection — who 
avowedly usurped all those powers w'hich belonged ex- 
clusively to the National Empire and not to the States ; 
who dispersed and demoralized our armies ; scattered over 
distant seas our small, but faithful and gallant navy ; who 
robbed our treasur}^ secretly took the public arms, and at 
last broke out into rebellion by seizing the public moneys? 
forts, and arsenals — setting up a separate confederacy, 
and firing upon the ships, men, and forts of the United 
States — I sa}', those traitors to the Constitution and hu- 
manity received no word of censure for these violations of 
national law and eternal justice. No; it is for us, who 
are faithful to all, and would defend all, to the sacrifice of 
whatever is sacred among men, that these sympathizers 
with treason, its aiders and abettors, reserve all their ire 
and denunciation. 

Its Legality. 

Let us see, then, if the proclamation violates the Consti- 
tution, or not. Vattel (Laws of Nations, B. 3, ch. 18) says, 
after di'fining "sedition," and "insurrection," " AVhen in 
a Ke[)id)h'(' a nation is divided into two opposite factions, 
and both sides lake uj> arms, this is called a civil war." 
"These two parties are two distinct people." "Thus 
they an- iu tlu; case of two nations who have a dispute 



15 

wliicli they cannot adjust, and are compelled to decide it 
by force of arms." " The ohligation of observing the com- 
mon laws of war are therefore absolute — and tlie same 
which the law of nature obhges all nations to observe 
between State and State." Foreign nations have acknowl- 
edged the dc Jkcto goyevmnent of the " (Confederate States" 
and allowed them all the rights of belligerents. In that 
action we have acquiesced, and confirmed it by exchange 
•of prisoners of war, and similar admissions. We have, then, 
the same rights of war against the " Confederate States" 
as we have against other nations, which rights arc deter- 
inined by the laws of nations solely, and not at all by the 
Constitution of the United States. Now, there is no dis- 
pute as to the rights or laws of war. Chancellor Kent (Com., 
sec. -5, p. 89) says : " The end of war is to procure by 
force the justice which cannot be otherwise obtained, and 
the laws of nations allow the means necessary to the end. 
The persons and property of the enemy may be attacked, 
and captured or destroyed, when neeessar}'^ to procure 
reparation or security." Says Vattel (Laws of Nations, B. 
3, ch. S) : " On a declaration of war, therefore, the 
nation has a right of doing against the enenw whatever is 
necessary to this justifiable end of bringing hin^i to reason, 
and obtaining justice and security from him." •• It gives a 
right of doing against the enemy whatever is necessary for 
weakening him ; of disabling him from making any further 
resistance in support of his injustice ; and the most proper, 
the most effectual methods may be chosen, providtMl they 
have nothing odious, be not unlawful in themselves, or 
exploded by the law of nature." 

Such is the doctrine laid down by Wheatonand all pub- 
licists. If, then, the slaves of the Confederate States are inc/i, 
we have the right to caj)ture or destroy them ; if they are 



IG 

jH'operty, we have tl)e right to deprive their claimants of its 
use, and thus compel them to submission. The Emperor of 
Russia, in the arbitration between England and the United 
States, decided that shives were legal caj^ture by the 
rights of war, J. Q. Adams held that even in a slave in- 
surrection, the slaves might be made free. Judge Clover, 
in case of Com. vs. Ben. Williams, in St. Louis,, has pro- 
nounced tlie proclamation constitutional. 

Its Justice. 

Tliis property of slaves the President jjroposes to restore 
to liberty; not to destroy it, by death. If there is a lasv 
of nature, this is one; if there is a humanity in war, this 
is the noblest ! That man has a natural right to his liberty 
has been held by the wise and good of all ages, and of all 
religions. Justinian (Just. Insts., lib. 1, tit. 2, § 2) says : 
" Jure enim uaturali omnes liomines ab initio liberi nasce- 
bantur." De Wolpius"(Legs. Natm.) declares: "Nations 
are so many particular persons living together in a state of 
nature," and " they are born naturally free." Montesquieu 
(L'Esprit des Lois, B. 17, ch. 5), relates : " In the North 
were found those valiant people, who sallied forth to 
destroy tyrants and slaves, and to teach men that, nature 
having made them equal, reason could not render them de- 
pendent." And again (B. 1-5, ch. 5) : " But, as all men 
are born equal, slavery must be accounted unnatural." 

The French National Assembly (August 20, 1789) pro- 
claimed tliat : " All men are born and continue free and 
rqiufl, as to their rights." The Declaration of the Fourth 
of July, 177G, declared : that " all men are created ec^ual 
— endowed with certain inalienable rights — among which 
are — //7«:/7^." For my part, I always scorn to debate so 
self-evident a truth ; for, to me, the plainest of rights is 
th(! riirlit (if a man to himself. 



17 

Its Safety and Expediency. 
Whilst tluTc is IK) siiuc )ii;iii outside the Slave States \vli(» 
doubts the legality and justice of tlii! abolition of slavery, 
let lis, then, exainiiu! the expediency of iinnieiliate libera- 
tion. Whilst we, have ever held that what is ri<;ht is 
always expedient, for those of less faith in the riirht, we 
give the experience of emancipation in the West Indies- 
M. Cochin, a learned French philanthropist, has just pub- 
lished a work, termed "The Results of Einaiicipation " 
(translated by Mary S. Booth, Boston: 1SG;3), in which h.' 
examines, from the statistical reports of all the govern- 
ments, the effects of emancipation in the West Indies. He 
concludes that the experiment is a success in all respects. 
That there are more property-holders — more families — 
more priests — more churches — higher price of lands — in- 
creased gross consumption — equal exportation of tropical 
products — smaller armies — fewer persons in prison under 
freedom, than, before, under slavery. In a word, that " lib- 
erty, property, and family," the loss of which sunk the 
man into a slave, have been restored, by raising the slave 
into a man. The expediency of immediate over gradual 
liberation, was fully proved by experience. England passed 
her act of emancipation August 2S, 1833, giving £40,000,000 
for 800,000 slaves, and extending the system of gradualism 
or apjDrenticeship for seven years, till 1840. But, on the 
1st of August, 1838, she was forced to immediate libera- 
tion. In France, the Convention of 1789 proclaimed im- 
mediate emancipation. In consequence of the opposition 
of the slaveholders, this act was resisted till 179-4, when 
repeated insurrections compelled immediate emancipation, 
which brought with it peace. Slavery was attempted and 
partially restored, under Napoleon, in 1802, with all the 
horrors of bloodshed on both sides ; in which barbarities 



IS 

I lie whites excelled the blacks — importing ship-loads of 
l)l()odhouiids from Cuba! Liberty \Yas restored in 1830; 
abolished nnder the monarchy, and again finally established 
in 1848. The Danes tried gradualism, and abandoned it, 
as a failure, July 3, 1848. Sweden abolished slavery at 
once, in 1846. The Dutch abolished slavery in her East 
India possessions, May 7, 1859, and in the West Indies, 
July 1, 1862. England gave a compensation to the slave- 
holders of S125 per head : the Dutch the same : the French 
8106. Gradual emancipation always proved a failure ; and 
abolition a success. The danger of massacre comes from 
slavery and oppression : not from liberty and humanity. 
The Duke de Broglie, speaking of English abolition, says: 
" The summons to freedom of 800,000 slaves at the same 
moment has not caused, in all the English colonies, the 
tenth part of the disturbance ordinarily caused by the 
smallest political question that agitates minds ever so little, 
amongst the most civilized nations of Europe." 

M. Cochin thus sums up his conclusions : ' ' Nearly a million 
of men, women, and children have passed from the condition 
of cattle to the rank of rational beings. Numerous mar- 
riages have elevated the family above the mire of a name- 
less promiscuousness. Paternity has replaced illegitimacy. 
Churches and schools are opened. Keligion, before mute, 
factious, and dishonored, has resumed its dignity and liber- 
ty. Men, who had nothing, have acquired property. Lands 
which were waste have been occupied : inadequate popu- 
lations have increased : detestable processes of agriculture 
and manufacture have been replaced by better: a race, 
reputed inferior, vicious, and lascivious, idle, refractory 
to civilization, religion, and instruction, has shown itself 
honest, gentle, disposed to family life, accessible to Chris- 



10 

tianity, eager for instruction. Those of its incnilierM who 
have returned to vagrancy, sh)th, and corruption, an; not a 
reproach to race as much as to the servitude whicli has left 
them wallowing in their native ignorance and depravity ; 
but these are a minority. The majority labor, and show 
themselves far superior to the auxiliaries which China and 
India send to the colonists. In two words, wealth has 
suftered little ; civilization has gained much. Such is tlu^ 
balance-sheet of the English experiment." If calamity, 
then, shall follow the proclamation, it will be the fault 
of the masters, not of the President, nor of the freed 
blacks. 

What shall be done with the Freed Blacks? 

When the rebel States shall be subdued : when the 
State Constitutions shall be made free : when the lands of 
the rebels shall be confiscated, and sold, or divided between 
loyal and armed occupants, the blacks can be employed as 
hired laborers upon the same lands they now occupy. If 
wages are sufficient to induce work, very well : if not, then 
let them be compelled to work, and be paid. Let schools 
and churches be established : and let civil and political 
rights be extended to the blacks, as they shall in time prove 
worthy of them. 

I proclaim a free political salvation. I have nothing to 
do with the equality or inequality of races. I have to do 
with the equality of civil and political rights ; and I am 
for extending them to all nations, without regard to color, 
religion, or language, only, as they shall prove worthy of 
the boon. It is not for me, whose British ancestors, so 
late as the overthrow of the Roman Republic, were savages, 
and pagans, and cannibals, to sit in judgment upon the 
rank of nations and races. I have no respect for that De- 



20 

mocracy, ui' tli;it Jit'pnblicunisiii, North or South, wliich 
denies, without regard to merit, civil rights to the blacks- 
They are far more worthy of civil and political liberty than 
many of those who are fiercest in the denunciation of them. 
The allegation, that Deity has decreed the eternal slavery 
of any race, is a calumny against man, and a blasphemy 
against God. Equally do I despise the hypocrisy of those 
defenders of slavery and the slave trade, who vaunt them 
before the world as, at one time, civilizing and Christianiz- 
ing the African ; and yet, when we propose liberation, con- 
tend that three hundred years of such schooling only fit 
them to cut the throats of their benefactors ! The difficulty 
of this whole question is solved by laying down our preju- 
dices, and nsing a little common sense. Recognize the 
slaves as men, and treat them according to their merit or 
demerit, and all difficulties disappear. Labor everywhere 
will be freed from the competition of unpaid wages. The 
blacks will, by the law of nature and the proof of history, 
gravitate towards the tropics. The tropical productions 
will not be decreased ; whilst consumption will increase. 
The commerce and manufactures of the North will be en- 
larged, instead of being destroyed. In a word, industry 
will everywhere be encouraged ; because labor, being free, 
will bo everywhere made honorable. 

Our Foreign Relations, and Slavery. 

AVhatever may be the feelings of foreign aristocracies 
against Republicanism, the liberals of all Europe are for 
the principles of freedom and emancipation. Whilst the 
people of England are secured to us by the proclamation, 
the Government dare not intervene on the side of slave- 
holders, liussia is with us uj)on the basis of common in- 



21 

terests ; and wliilst the other liioiiarchics may threaten us 
on one side, we are, on tlie other, safe in the defeiisi- ol'tlie 
greatest liberal ol' all Kiirope, Alexander II., who is morr 
worthy of the name of "the Great," for ilie millions he 
has made free, than Alexander Macedon was for the 
millions he made slaves ! Ikit, after all, we must rely m[>oii 
ourselves, our glorious cause, and the heroism of our 
troops. United at home, w^e may safely defy a woild in 
arms. Whilst I am grateful to friends, I have no words 
of self-abaseijient for our haughty foes at home or al)ioad. 
Notwithstanding the cry of "radicalism," I have still taitli 
in humanity. I neither despair of my principles, nor of 
the Republic. They will both, I trust, live long after the 
desponding prophecies of disappointed demagogues and 
the blows of ambitious traitors shall have been alik(! for- 
gotten. 

Slavery in the Loyal States. 

The President and the Republican party leave slavery in 
the loyal states where they found it. We have never 
claimed any political power to abolish it there. We have 
claimed and exercised the power to abolish it in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, in the Territories, and in all places of 
exclusive national jurisdiction. This is glory enough for 
any administration. The proposition to compensate the 
slave-owners in the loyal States, who shall liberate their 
bondsmen, is, on our part, magnanimous and patriotic. I 
approve the j^olicy, and I urged the justice and expedi- 
ency of its adoption upon the representatives of Kentucky, 
in the hall of the House of Representatives in August last. 
It is for them to adopt or reject the proposition. 

But whether for or against the proclamation, and the 
scheme of emancipation, the loyalty of my native State I 



have never doubted. A hereditary Slave State herself, she 
has ever made slavery subordinate to the higher interests 
secured by the Constitution and the Union. Whatever 
opinion she may have of Republican policy — there she 
stands, and there she will ever stand. Besides, were she 
les:- loyal, she is not less wise, for she knows that the way 
to save the slavery of the South is not to join the rebellion, 
but to subdue it. That, w^itli peace, the military j)ower of 
the President ceases, and the w^hole right over slavery sur- 
vives in the States themselves. 

Independent reasons why Slavery should be destroyed. 
In reply to all these arguments, we are met with the 
Democratic cant of " the Union as it was." There never 
was, and never can be, any cordial union between liberty 
and slavery. Liberty dej)ends upon equality of civil and 
political rights : slavery is subversive of both. Liberty 
fosters education, and religion, and virtue : slavery opposes 
all. Liberty desires a fair distribution of lands, and other 
property, among the whole population : slavery tends to a 
monopoly of both. Liberty respects labor : slavery de- 
spises it. Liberty encourages the arts, manufactures, and 
commerce : slavery is incapable of them. Liberty makes 
and obeys law : slavery defies it. Liberty advances civil- 
ization : slavery returns to barbarism. Liberty appeals to 
justice, and the nobler sentiments, for its safety : slavery 
to force, and the animal instincts, and fears. Liberty is 
our ideal of the Divine Beneficence : slavery the fullest 
manifestation of the evil, which follows the ignoring of the 
laws of God. *'The Union as it was" was not even a 
truce between these conflicting powers: from the begin- 
ning, l)(!fore the Constitution, and after it, there was a 
secret war, in the home and foreign policy of the country; 
ill the acquisition and contiol of territory : and in the lurni- 



'2^i 

atioii of Stiitcs. It aicw into ;iii avowed st iii<_r<r|,. i;,|- 
political ascciitlaiicy in tlic wliolr Tnion, Free and Slave 
States. It culniinjited in war in Kansas; and liiially in 
rebellion and disunion. " 'I'lie I'nion as ir, was" means 
the subjection of millions of nominal freemen to a few 
hundred thousand slave-holders. " The Union as it was" 
means domination in the South ; subjection in the North. 
" The Union as it was" means the overthrow of all Consti- 
tutions, all law, and all liberty. " The Union as it was" 
means corruption, robbery, incapacity of government, and 
a dissolution of the bonds of society. " The Union as it 
was" means treason and rebellion, as they were. If we 
are true to ourselves, we will have no more of " the Union 
as it was ;" but the Constitution as it is, and the union of 
freedom and free men, as our fatlu'rs desiirned it. 

Historic reasons against the Union as it was. 
In having tried the experiment of the Union of Slave and 
Free States, and having proved it a lailure, we are but 
repeating well-known history. In the union, or rather 
Confederation of the German States, some free and others 
aristocratic, monarchical, and despotic, Germany has never 
been able to secure consolidation or safety. Slie still strug- 
gles in vain for " a more perfect union." Holland and Swit- 
zerland, being homogeneous, have better succeeded. The 
Vientes, choosing a king, broke up the Tuscan Federation. 
The Canaanites, being petty monarciiies, were naturally 
incapable of forming an useful union. It was the admission 
of the Kings of ]\[acedon into the Amphyctionic Coimcil 
which overthrew the Confederation, and extinguished the 
liberties of Greece forever. 

Peroration. 
When, long years ago, knowing the nature of slavery, we 



(li'sirctl by pi'iiccaWIt' mcjiiisto check its power and to sub- 
ject it to the civiliziiiu inlbiences of tlie age: Nortli and 
South, we were told to lie (|uiot — time would cure all 
rhinos — Providence would luovide a remedy. In peace^ 
llie tinu> had not come : and now in war the time has not 
come ! In vain we gave utterance to the "voiceless woe" 
(»t' till' lour millions of men, women, and children in slavery; 
and nnplored the eight millions of whites to let the 
oppressed go I'ree, The prejudice of color bound the non- 
slave-holding whites, alike with the black, to the masters' 
chariot wheels. See them now, like dundj cattle, driven to 
tiie slaughter; they are thrown in heaps into their last resting 
places ; no stone marks their dishonored graves. See now 
" the desolator desolate ! " Within the shattered hovel, 
l)y the broken hearth-stone, the wan, expectant wife 
gathers her ragged, starving children : alas ! the husband, 
the lather, and the brother will return no more ! Yes, 
Providence at last speaks ! By the wasted fields — the 
blighted industries — the exhausted treasures — the desolated 
hearth-stones — the tears of the widow and the orphan — 
and the shedding of blood — Deity calls upon us to execute 
justice. The madness of the pamcides has broken the 
shield of the Constitution. Men of the North, having now 
tlie legal equitable jtower over slavery, I warn you, too, 
that God decrees liberty to all or to none! The hopes and 
fears of a lile struggle are with me crowded into a day. I 
would that you could feel as I do the urgency of the crisis, 
which determines the destiny of so many millions now 
living, and the vastly more millions yet to be l)orn. Then 
would you be jiersiiaded, thai as much as the liberation of 
the slaves is a " //v//- vikisiitc,'''' yet liir more is it a '■'■ 2)C(ice 
inrii«urf\" If you would have pea(te, be just; for justice 
IX the onlij ])( an . 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 

lilllliiill 



liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi 

012 028 976 7 



L 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




012 028 976 7 



